+1 for the namespace proposal.
It is similar to github repos. Top-level is the org, then single level for
repo (beam-abc, beam-xzy, ..)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:45 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> Various tags of the same image should at least logically be the same
> thing, so I agree that we should not be trying to share a single
> repository in that way. A full suite of apache/beam-{image_desc}
> repositories, if apache is fine with that, seems like the best
> approach.
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1, agree that moving current image name to tags is a non-starter.
> Thanks for driving this Hannah. Let us know what they say about repo
> creation.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:16 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> SG +1
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:59 PM Hannah Jiang <hannahji...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have done some research about images released under apache namespace
> at docker hub, and here is my proposal.
> >>>
> >>> Currently, we are using apachebeam as our namespace and each image has
> its own repository. Version number is used to tag the images.
> >>> ie: apachebeam/python2.7_sdk:2.19.0,
> apachebeam/flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
> >>>
> >>> Now we are migrating to apache namespace and docker hub doesn't
> support nested repository names, so we cannot use
> apache/beam/{image-desc}:{version}.
> >>> Instead, I propose to use apache/beam-{image_desc}:{version} as our
> repository name.
> >>> ie: apache/beam-python2.7_sdk:2.19.0,
> apache/beam-flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
> >>> => When a user searches for apache/beam at docker hub, it will list
> all the repositories we deployed with apache/beam-, so no concerns that
> some released images are missed by users.
> >>> => Repository names give insights to the users which repositories they
> should use.
> >>> => A downside with this approach is we need to create a new repository
> whenever we release a new image, time and effort needed for this is
> pending, I am contacting apache docker hub management team.
> >>>
> >>> I have considered using beam as repository name and moving image name
> and version to tags, (ie: apache/beam:python3.7_sdk_2.19.0), which means
> put all images to a single repository, however, this approach has some
> downsides.
> >>> => When a user searches for apache/beam, only one repository is
> returned. Users need to use tags to identify which images they should use.
> Since we release images with new tags for each version, it will overwhelm
> the users and give them an impression that the images are not organized
> well. It's also difficult to know what kind of images we deployed.
> >>> => With both image name and version included at tags, it is a little
> bit more complicated to maintain the code.
> >>> => There is no correct answer which image the latest tag should point
> to.
> >>>
> >>> Are there any concerns with this proposal?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Hannah
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:19 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:32 PM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also curious to know if apache provide any infra support fro
> projects under Apache umbrella and any quota limits they might have.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe Hannah can ask with an infra ticket?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 2:26 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One downside is that, unlike many of these projects, we release a
> >>>>>>> dozen or so containers. Is there exactly (and only) one level of
> >>>>>>> namespacing/nesting we can leverage here? (This isn't a blocker,
> but
> >>>>>>> something to consider.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After a quick search, I could not find a way to use more than one
> level of repositories. We can use the naming scheme we currently use to
> help with. Our repositories are named as apachebeam/X, we could start using
> apache/beam/X.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hannah Jiang <
> hannahji...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Thanks Ahmet for proposing it.
> >>>>>>> > I will take it and work towards v2.19.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Missed this part. Thank you Hannah!
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Hannah
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:50 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> It'd be nice to have the clout/official sheen of apache
> attached to our containers. Although getting the required permissions might
> add some small overhead to the release process. For example, yesterday,
> when we needed to create new repositories (not just update existing ones),
> since we have top-level ownership of the apachebeam organization, it was
> quick and easy to add them. I imagine we'd have had to get approval from
> someone outside the project to do that under the apache org. But this won't
> need to happen very often, so it's probably not that big a deal.
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:40 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> I saw recent progress on the containers and wanted to bring
> this question to the attention of the dev list.
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Would it be possible to use the official ASF dockerhub
> organization for new Beam container releases? Concretely, starting from
> 2.19 could we release Beam containers to https://hub.docker.com/u/apache
> instead of https://hub.docker.com/u/apachebeam ?
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Ahmet
>
